TRANSPORT The Cambridge Futures response to the Draft Structure Plan

1. TRANSPORTThe Cambridge Futures response to the Draft Structure Plan Dr Tony Hargreaves, Cambridge Futures

2. Structure of the presentation • Cambridge Futures progress • Potential transport effects of the Structure Plan • Will the transport policies deliver a sustainable spatial strategy? • Are the transport investment priorities the right ones? • Transport options being tested by Cambridge Futures • Conclusions

3. Cambridge Futures progress • Cambridge Futures Phase 1 - transport was the main issue • Phase 2 is developing transport options • Aims to test them using the County Council land use/transport model • Liasing with the County Council to develop the Structure Plan model to form a 2016 base for testing the options.

4. The scale of development • Sub Region • new dwellings (29% increase 1999 to 2016) • Cambridge urban area • new dwellings (38% increase 1999 to 2016) • The majority ofnew dwellings in the Cambridge urban area are more than 2 km from Cambridge city centre

5. 2

6. Potential transport effects of the Draft Structure Plan • High traffic growth between 2001 and 2016 • Sub Region 30% • Cambridge urban area 35% to 40% (Source of estimates: Cambridge Futures Phase 1; TEMPRO trip end forecasts) • Increasing traffic delays of up to 200% (Source of estimate: Cambridge Futures Phase 1) • ‘Peak spreading’

7. 2

8. 2

9. Potential consequences • Economic • increasing production costs • Environmental • increasing air pollution, and poorer environmental quality • Social • lower socio-economic groups would be disproportionately affected by traffic congestion • It may be difficult to achieve the projected levels of development without substantial investment in transport

10. EiP Session 4A: Will the policies deliver a sustainable spatial strategy? • Overall transport policies emphasise increasing the ability to move by cycle, public transport, and on foot. • They propose the development of high quality public transport, (HQPT), services, defined according to service frequency. • The priority measures are not clearly defined for urban areas. • The measures rely on a reallocation of road space at a time when there will be a major increase in traffic demand. • Fiscal demand management could free up some road space for public transport priority measures - Plan needs to be more specific about the fiscal measures to be considered.

11. 2 Proposed schemes in the Draft Structure Plan

12. Concerns about the transport investment priorities • Modal split assumptions seem too high. • Traffic growth on the A14 • More traffic than expected in the NW A14 corridor • Traffic from development east of Cambridge • potential effects of proposed Alconbury hgv depot? • Feasibility of accommodating all of the rail improvements? Can the Cambridge to Newmarket service be improved? Is there also room for rapid transit?

13. Concerns about the transport investment priorities continued... • Transport investment is focussed on corridors into the city centre - and does not cater for the growth in cross-city travel. • 1991 Census data shows that for Cambridge two-thirds of work trips are more than 2km. Many of these longer journeys are likely to be by car. • Some investment in ‘orbital’ transport capacity is required.

14. Options being tested by Cambridge Futures • Public transport? • Congestion road pricing • Orbital highway • Improved cycling and walking facilities • A combination of the options • These options have still to be tested using a land use transport model and some elements may be added or omitted depending on the results.

15. Public transport option • Extensive network, as shown in the following Figure. Rapid transit would include segregation and priorities. • Extra park and ride sites. • A route connecting the park and ride sites and linking the nodes of edge development. • Possibly a tunnel from the West of Cambridge under the City Centre to the Newmarket Road corridor • An inner circular system, possibly a one-way service given the physical constraints. • Also includes the Draft Structure Plan HQPT proposals.

16. 2

17. Congestion Road Pricing • Congestion road pricing will be tested as an example of fiscal demand management. • It would consist of a cordon of tolling points around Cambridge as shown in the following Figure. • The charges for vehicles crossing the cordon would be £3 during peak periods with a lower charge off-peak. There would be a charge of around £0.50 for journeys within the cordon.

18. Cordon Charging

19. Orbital Highway • The orbital would form an outer ring road linking the edge developments. • It would enable drivers to access the park and ride site that passes closest to their destination. • The scheme would include either link roads parallel to the A14 and M11, as shown on the following Figure, or a separate parallel route. The orbital would cater for local traffic with long distance through traffic using the mainlines of the A14 & M11. • Tunnels would reduce the environment impact around the south east of Cambridge.

20. Possible Cambridge Orbital

21. Cycling and walking • Extension and improvements to the cycle network, perhaps using new bridges and rights of way. • Cycle storage and hire facilities at transport interchanges • Expansion of the pedestrianised areas • Improved walking links along pedestrian desire lines.

22. Conclusions • Structure Plan should not preclude the possibility of an orbital route - assess before the Local Transport Plan Review July 2003 • Cambridge Futures understands that the results of latest run of County model will be available in time for the transport sessions EiP. • Major transport investment is required, £0.68 to £0.70bn excluding the £0.3bn required for the CHUMMS recommendations, (Roger Tym Report). • A major transport study would be worthwhile, perhaps building on the work done by the A14 CHUMMS study.